|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Ian Pearson: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) make representations to the Eritrean Government on human rights issues at every suitable opportunity. The Government expressed our concern on the issue of arrests and detention without trial to the Eritrean ambassador on 28 July and we have since pressed him at senior official level. Our ambassador in Asmara also regularly raises these issues with the Eritrean Government, both bilaterally and with our EU colleagues. The Government will continue to press the Entreans to improve human rights, including in its role of EU presidency.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what institutional arrangements he is proposing to minimise the overlap in functions between the EU and the Council of Europe. 
Mr. Douglas Alexander: Following decisions made at the Council of Europe's third summit, held in Warsaw in May, the UK, as EU presidency, has initiated a memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU. Work is now under way.
This memorandum of understanding intends to create a new framework of enhanced co-operation between the two organisations, building on their respective competence and expertise. The idea is to ensure that both the CoE and the EU complement each other rather than duplicate their functions.
Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list preparatory work undertaken by the Commission in anticipation of the ratification of the EU constitution since the start of the UK presidency. 
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list elements contained in the EU Constitution that have been proposed separately as EU legislation since 1 June; and if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the implementation of separate elements of the Constitution. 
The hon. Member will be aware that, following the June European Council, the future of the Constitutional Treaty is uncertain. Until there is clarity on the way forward on ratification, it would be premature to talk about the implications of detailed provisions.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the institutions of the EU towards
14 Oct 2005 : Column 647W
creating (a) a European Armaments Agency, (b) an EU President, (c) an EU Foreign Minister, (d) an EU External Action Service, (e) an EU Fundamental Rights Agency, (f) a European Police College, (g) a European Public Prosecutor, (h) an EU standing committee on internal security and (i) a European Space Agency; under what legal authority these steps have been taken; and what further steps could be taken without the coming into force of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. 
The European Defence Agency has already been established following a unanimous decision by Heads of State and Government in June 2004. The Government agreed with this decision as the European Defence Agency could be established under Article 14 Treaty European Union (TEU) and the Government believes that the Agency will make a real contribution to enhancing the effectiveness of EU member states' military capabilities.
No steps have been taken by the institutions of the EU towards the creation of a President of the European Council or the creation of an EU Foreign Minister, as envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty in Article 122 and Article 128.
The Luxembourg presidency took forward preparatory work on the European External Action Service as tasked by the 2004 October Intergovernmental conference and 2004 December European Council. This work has not pre-empted ratification: it has consisted of discussion and exchange of ideas in Brussels. No formal decisions have been taken as part of this preparatory work.
The Council decision to convert the existing EU Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia into a Fundamental Rights Agency was taken nearly two years ago. The Commission published a draft Regulation and Council Decision on the establishment of a Fundamental Rights Agency on 30 June. The Commission proposes that the legal base for the Agency be Article 308 Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), and the legal base for the Council Decision Articles 30, 31 and 34(2)(c) TEU.
The European Police College (CEPOL) was established by Council Decision 2000/820/JHA of 22 December 2000. Articles 30(1) (c) and 34(2) (c) TEU provide the legal basis for a European Police College. In December 2003 the European Council decided that the seat of CEPOL should be in the United Kingdom and subsequently that the CEPOL Secretariat should be based in Bramshill. The European Police College was established as a European Body by Council Decision 10040/05 of 13 July 2005.
No steps have been taken towards the creation of a European Public Prosecutor and there is no legal base in the current treaties for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor envisaged by the Constitutional Treaty in Article HI-274.
14 Oct 2005 : Column 648W
Preliminary discussions of the role and composition of the internal security committee envisaged by the Constitutional Treaty took place under the Luxembourg presidency of the EU in the first half of 2005. No formal steps have been taken by the EU institutions towards creating such a committee.
The European Space Agency was set up in 1975 by both European Union and non European Union countries. It is an inter-governmental body established by Convention that does not form a part of the European Union although it maintains close ties with it.
Dr. Howells: Hizb ut-Tahrir are active in several countries. Their stated goal is the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate. Hizb ut-Tahrir are an intolerant organisation. They have denounced democracy and express extremist, anti-Semitic and homophobic views.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions can be employed to ensure member states of the Council of Europe implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 
The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers can adopt interim resolutions expressing concern with respect to the slow or non-execution of a judgment. Peer pressure is increased to encourage rapid compliance with the court's judgment. In the vast majority of cases, this is sufficient to ensure compliance.
The ultimate measure available to the Committee of Ministers is recourse to article 8 of the Council of Europe's statute: suspension of voting rights in the Committee of Ministers, or even expulsion from the organisation. But this is an extreme measure, which would prove counter-productive in most cases.
In order to strengthen the measures available, protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights empowers the Committee of Ministers to bring infringement proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights against a state that refuses to abide by a judgment. We are urging all member states of the Council of Europe to ratify the protocol as soon as possible, as the UK has done, so that it can enter into force.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|